In a landmark verdict, three of the UK's most senior judges said
the government is legally required to pass an act of parliament
before initiating Britain's formal departure from the European
Union.

Gina Miller, an investment manager based in London, was the lead
claimant in the case.

Her legal representative, Lord Pannick QC, successfully argued
that using royal prerogative to invoke Article 50 will mean
statutory rights enjoyed by Brits as EU citizens being slashed
without parliamentary involvement.

We interviewed Miller in August to find out what motivated her to
launch one of the most important constitutional cases in
Britain's history. This is what she told us in August this year.

Business Insider's Adam Payne: Is it safe to assume you
wanted Britain to remain in the EU?

Gina Miller:Actually, I managed to fall out with
both sides — Leave and Remain. I thought the question was far too
binary and I kept saying I was not a remainer — I was for
remain, reform, and review.

I thought the question was far too binary and I kept saying I was
not a remainer — I was for remain, reform, and review

As people in business know, if you just sit on your hands
and don't progress with the changing environment, you won't
reform and improve the existing relationships you have. Whilst I
agree that we should remain, I don't believe that it's something
to be taken for granted.

There is an awful lot of work we could do. What has frustrated me
more than anything is the fact that the UK could be part of that
reforming agenda and even leading it and we wasted that
opportunity.

Payne: So what prompted you to launch this legal
case?

Miller: On the morning of the 24th, like so many
people, I was absolutely stunned.

I was very aware that there was no particular plan to leave and
it was fought with a huge amount of unknown. I was very alarmed
by the out vote because I felt people had been lied to. But also
because there was no plan B or any plan at all for what it would
actually mean if we voted out.

Payne: What was it in particular that bothered
you?

Miller: The word which kept ringing in my
ear over and over again was sovereignty. I started looking into
it further because there were 3 three things which particularly
worried me.

1) It is clear Article 50 has to be triggered along a number of
procedural steps and with regard to our constitution. If it
isn't, it will weaken our negotiation position with the EU member
states.

2) If we trigger Article 50 under royal prerogative, what is
stopping the EU turning around and saying "well, you've actually
triggered Article 50 illegally, you've now forfeited your
two-year negotiation period, so leave?" It really isn't beyond
the EU to do that. Article 50 is very poorly written and raises
more questions more answers.

3) We must remember that the UK doesn't have a written
constitution — it is made up of precedent. If we set the
precedent that a government can use their royal prerogative to
take away people's human rights, that is taking us into a very
dangerous political environment.

This chart shows how the majority of MPs wanted Britain
to remain in the EU prior to the June 23
referendum.Morgan
Stanley

Payne: So what exactly do you want to see
happen?

Miller: I believe these things should be
debated and looked at in parliament. It would be the first time
that we would have a proper, serious, grown-up debate about all
the factors that will influence us leaving the
EU. There should be a debate about the consequences
for different sectors. MPs should listen to their constituents.
Then, if MPs vote in favour of invoking Article 50, primary
legislation.

But don't forget, the court could turn around and say "we agree
that we are leaving so now we need an act of parliament" and it
could be as simple as that. It wouldn't necessarily mean
that the process gets delayed. If MPs vote to pass the act then
Article 50 would be triggered.

We must not underestimate or forget the anger in Europe about our
vote. The UK has always had a special relationship with the EU.
They've given to us significantly over the years and we've always
had a veto. They're very angry that we've had this relationship
yet we still threaten the union.

To me, it's very clear that we cannot have a government using
royal prerogative to take away peoples' human rights

Payne: How likely is the case to be
successful?

Miller: It's very hard to say. It's going
to be the biggest constitutional case for hundreds of years
because we've never debated these things before. You know the
courts are taking it seriously because they've exercised
something called a "legal leapfrog" which means because time is
of the essence, we are going to skip the low courts and so
straight to Lord Justice and then Supreme Court.

To me, it's very clear that we cannot have a government using
royal prerogative to take away peoples' human rights.

From a legal point of view, the referendum was advisory. I know
it was the venting of anger and peoples' dissatisfaction with the
political environment, but that's not what I'm concerned about.
I'm very much concerned with the procedural substance of what we
do because I believe we are in a much worse place if we don't do
that.

Payne: Speaking of anger, have you come in for any
criticism for launching this case?

Miller: I'm the only named client now but
originally I wasn't the only one and the other people whose names
were listed as clients received unbelievably vile abuse.

[Initially, Miller wasamong a number of clients
bringing similar cases forward. These cases were bundled into a
single lawsuit with Miller as the listed
plaintiff]

We cannot let bullies hijack this process

Since my name went public on July 19, I have received the
same. It has been horrendous. There are boycotts against our
business. There are campaigns on Facebook encouraging people to
do things to me. That fuels me more. We cannot let bullies hijack
this process. It certainly isn't a comfortable place to be.

Payne: Have you spoken to any politicians about your
case?

Miller: We could have done that and we
debated whether we should do that but I want to be very clear
that this isn't about politics. It's about procedure, policy, and
substance regarding how we should leave.

Payne: How much of a preoccupation has this case become
for you?

Miller: Like most entrepreneurs will admit,
I don't tend to sleep a lot.

I've already got the investment business, I run a big foundation
where we look after community charities, I run something called
the campaign which is calling for reform in the city's code of
ethics, and this case, like everything else I do, is about what
is best for consumers and how we should be serving people as a
society. This is just another example of that.